Exactly 10 years ago this month, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked if he had any concerns regarding the housing market. At that time, he emphasized that he saw no sign of a nationwide housing bubble, but he did have concerns over “froth” in the market and pointed to a big increase in the purchase of investment properties — particularly in second homes.

As a result, he said, there are “a lot of local bubbles” around the country, but not at a national level.

As we are all very much aware, Greenspan — along with many other esteemed economists — was incorrect in his prediction that there was no national housing bubble in sight.

So here we are, a decade later, and some are starting to suggest that we are on the verge of another “bubble” bursting due to an overheated housing market. I’m often asked if there is any truth to this, and my response is, “No, I don’t believe there is a national bubble on the horizon.” And here are the reasons why:

1. The flippers have left the building. It causes me untold angst to see the resurgence of reality TV programs espousing the wonders of house flipping, but the country has seen a marked slowdown in this type of business.

Why? Well, one reason is that the number of foreclosed homes continues to drop. Foreclosures are the preferred property type for flippers, as margins can be significantly higher.

Given that there is less distressed inventory, it’s not surprising that homes purchased with the intent to “flip” have declined nationwide. Data supplied by RealtyTracsuggests that the percentage of homes that were bought with the intent to “flip” has dropped from a peak of 6.7 percent at the beginning of 2014 to 4 percent today, and I believe that this share will continue to decline, signifying a more normalized market.

2. Lending standards remain very stringent. Banks actually did learn a lesson from the collapse of the housing market and remain wary, and because of this, qualifying for a mortgage remains difficult.

For example, in April of this year, the average FICO score required for an approved conventional home loan was 756, with a 19 percent down payment. The average FICO score for someone who was denied a loan (with an average down payment of 17 percent) was very high, at 699.

Even low down payment programs (for example, FHA loans) that have less stringent FICO requirements (686 for FHA loans approved in April) are still high enough that they don’t cause me concern when I think about these borrowers’ ability to handle their mortgage obligations.

To further support this view, there are several components of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that provide substantial safeguards when it comes to irresponsible lending practices, such as requiring lenders — through the qualified mortgage rule — to ensure a borrower’s ability to repay.

3. Home prices are up, but not to pre-bubble levels. I looked at data provided by Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index, which is a useful resource because it calculates the increase/decrease in value of the same house over time, rather than just the makeup of sales during a specific time period.

At the national level, the bursting of the housing bubble led to a 27 percent drop in the index. The index has risen back up but is still 9 percent below the prior peak.

4. Interest rates are going to (eventually) start to rise — and this will take some of the heat out of the market. Now, there are some who will say that any increase in mortgage rates will negatively impact the housing market, but I don’t agree. Although it is true that an increase in rates does decrease buying power, the naysayers are ignoring the fact that we are in a growing economy.

The growth in employment, and the subsequent drop in the unemployment rate, will lead to wage growth, and increasing incomes will take some of the sting out of any rate increase.

Given all of these points, I do not see the risk of a national “housing bubble” anywhere in the foreseeable future; however, I do think we are seeing localized “froth” in some markets. I’ll discuss this further in an upcoming blog post.

Matthew Gardner is the chief economist for Windermere Real Estate, the second-largest regional real estate company in the nation. Matthew specializes in residential market analysis, commercial/industrial market analysis, financial analysis, and land use and regional economics. He is the former principal of Gardner Economics, and has over 25 years of professional experience both in the U.S. and U.K. Follow him @windermere.